If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Americans for Tax Reform)   Healthcare by numbers isn't cool   (atr.org) divider line 37
    More: Ironic, flexible spending accounts, AEI, itemized deductions, health reform, excise taxes, health savings account, Taxpayer Protection Pledge, Looks like Hovde  
•       •       •

1695 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Aug 2012 at 2:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



37 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-08-16 10:54:25 AM
Yes, but what do "Canadians For Tax Reform" think?
 
2012-08-16 10:58:05 AM
So...an 8th grader's plan for tax reform is the best that the right can offer. Do you guys wonder why you're always the butt of jokes?
 
2012-08-16 11:12:16 AM
Americans for Tax Reform is an advocacy group and taxpayer group whose stated goal is "a system in which taxes are simpler, flatter, more visible, and lower than they are today. The government's power to control one's life derives from its power to tax. We believe that power should be minimized." It is best known for its "Taxpayer Protection Pledge," which asks candidates for federal and state office to commit themselves in writing to oppose all tax increases. Its founder and president is Grover Norquist, a conservative tax activist. Link
 
2012-08-16 11:15:19 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Americans for Tax Reform is an advocacy group and taxpayer group whose stated goal is "a system in which taxes are simpler, flatter, more visible, and lower than they are today. The government's power to control one's life derives from its power to tax. We believe that power should be minimized." It is best known for its "Taxpayer Protection Pledge," which asks candidates for federal and state office to commit themselves in writing to oppose all tax increases. Its founder and president is Grover Norquist, a conservative tax activist. Link


And proud we are of oll of them...
 
2012-08-16 11:17:59 AM
Whoa! I almost clicked that shiat!

Bite me, Grover
 
2012-08-16 11:20:51 AM
www.americanprogress.org
 
2012-08-16 11:29:14 AM
... but on Math it is.

/math
//not even once
 
2012-08-16 11:40:20 AM
So... more tax cuts for the wealthy!`
 
2012-08-16 11:44:56 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: [www.americanprogress.org image 600x960]


There's something a little twisted about the Center for American Progress touting the tax cut benefits of a Heritage Foundation plan passed by a Democratic president.
 
2012-08-16 12:13:21 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Americans for Tax Reform is an advocacy group and taxpayer group whose stated goal is "a system in which taxes are simpler, flatter, more visible, and lower than they are today. The government's power to control one's life derives from its power to tax. We believe that power should be minimized." It is best known for its "Taxpayer Protection Pledge," which asks candidates for federal and state office to commit themselves in writing to oppose all tax increases. Its founder and president is Grover Norquist, a conservative tax activist. Link


Man, the trolls woke up early this morning!
 
2012-08-16 12:33:28 PM
Said it before. The US needs a a Federal income surtax. All these tax rates and tax brackets and deductions only add to the smoke and mirrors. Plus it pits different segments of the population against each other.

Clearly the taxes on the rich need to be raised like the Buffet rule and letting Bush's cuts expire but at some point you need to turn the page on that debate and leave the income tax rates, brackets and deductions alone.

You need a surtax for everyone. Let's say 10%. It is applied to the tax you owe. So if you owe $1,000, you owe $1,100. If you owe $10,000, you owe $11,000 etc... One box on the tax form.

The surtax is what you should implement to (at minimum) to pay for the 2 wars you just had but ideally should be used for infrastructure spending to spur the economy or balancing the budget. If you think the taxes are too low to deal with a social issues, propose increasing it to 15%. Think it is to high, propose dropping it to 5% or 1% but leave it in place as a mechanism to adjust revenue when appropriate or providing tax relief to spur the economy when it is stalled.

As it is applied evenly, no particular income segment can claim they are getting a worse deal than another group. If a politician says he will increase/reduce it by x%, everyone instantly knows what that means. People can can look at their last tax return and know exactly what a doubling of surtax would mean for them. People would know what they are voting. GOP could say we can cut the surtax by x% if we eliminate the Department of Education. The DNC can say, we can invest in Education program if we increase the surtax by x%.

It would make the National tax debate of spending versus cuts versus debt much simpler for the lay person to understand and vote accordingly.
 
2012-08-16 02:03:31 PM
Now I've got health care by the number,
Troubles with my health,
Every day you help me less,
Each day I die some more,
Yes, I've got health care by the number,
A bill that I can't win,
But the day that I stop paying,
That's the day my world will end.
 
2012-08-16 02:12:27 PM
I never cared for Grover Norquist, but seeing that Ted Nugent endorsement really changed my perspective on the man.
 
2012-08-16 02:12:31 PM

mrshowrules: Said it before. The US needs a a Federal income surtax.


How about a .5% surtax on incomes over $250k to help pay for every .1% rate cut for the top bracket?

// might that cause Norquist's head to explode, or would that require that he process something beyond the party affiliation of who proposed it?
 
2012-08-16 02:14:16 PM
But is it as easy as your a,b,c's?
 
2012-08-16 02:16:21 PM
So vote republican, unless they manipulate the system so you are no longer registered in which case you probably should just bend over.
 
2012-08-16 02:25:01 PM

Lumpmoose: Dusk-You-n-Me: [www.americanprogress.org image 600x960]

There's something a little twisted about the Center for American Progress touting the tax cut benefits of a Heritage Foundation plan passed by a Democratic president.


...and the Republicans basing most of their campaign on repealing it.
 
2012-08-16 02:27:30 PM

Nadie_AZ: Now I've got health care by the number,
Troubles with my health,
Every day you help me less,
Each day I die some more,
Yes, I've got health care by the number,
A bill that I can't win,
But the day that I stop paying,
That's the day my world will end.


And again I'm beaten to the punch. Well played, sir.
 
2012-08-16 02:33:13 PM
Is there anything in particular that distinguishes TFA from any other arbitrarily assigned right wing outrage piece, or have we taken to just randomly greenlighting this stuff?
 
2012-08-16 02:35:53 PM
Special Interest for Tax Abolition

FTFY
 
2012-08-16 02:37:38 PM

whatsupchuck: Is there anything in particular that distinguishes TFA from any other arbitrarily assigned right wing outrage piece, or have we taken to just randomly greenlighting this stuff?


This one claims that a tax on health care plans that are over $30,000/year for a family is a tax on the poor.
 
2012-08-16 02:38:14 PM
We should have just continued the status quo, because obviously throwing an unlimited amount of money at the problem and getting decreasing results was working out so well.
 
2012-08-16 02:44:03 PM

sprawl15: whatsupchuck: Is there anything in particular that distinguishes TFA from any other arbitrarily assigned right wing outrage piece, or have we taken to just randomly greenlighting this stuff?

This one claims that a tax on health care plans that are over $30,000/year for a family is a tax on the poor.


I must admit, that does add an extra helping of derp to this particular word salad. But, still...
 
2012-08-16 02:47:10 PM

MrEricSir: We should have just continued the status quo, because obviously throwing an unlimited amount of money at the problem and getting decreasing results was working out so well.


It was for those with a lot of money to start with
 
2012-08-16 02:47:36 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: a system in which taxes are simpler, flatter, more visible, and lower than they are today.


Yes, because the solution for being millions of dollars in debt is to get a lower-paying job.
 
2012-08-16 02:50:16 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: [www.americanprogress.org image 600x960]


I notice they don't talk about the largest group, those who don't have healthcare and can't afford to get it. They didn't just magically disappear when Obamacare was passed, and they're not in the left column, despite what the administration wants to tell you.
 
2012-08-16 02:54:27 PM
Anyone who claims that government involvement in healthcare is not popular is a fool, delusional, or a liar. Probably all three.

www.myqwip.com
(click on image to vote)
 
2012-08-16 02:59:48 PM
*click*

Ted Nugent - Grover Norquist

If it was possible for a webpage to make a slamming sound for how fast that tab closed...
 
2012-08-16 03:01:03 PM

AntiNerd: Anyone who claims that government involvement in healthcare is not popular is a fool, delusional, or a liar. Probably all three.

[www.myqwip.com image 300x400]
(click on image to vote)


Stop with the goddamn myqwip shiat, you farkwit.

/*ploink*
 
2012-08-16 03:05:29 PM

IlGreven: Dusk-You-n-Me: [www.americanprogress.org image 600x960]

I notice they don't talk about the largest group, those who don't have healthcare and can't afford to get it.


They're the ones receiving tax credits to help pay insurance premiums. I understand how you might miss that, tucked away all the way down at the very first box in the graphic.
 
2012-08-16 03:06:12 PM
AntiNerd

Anyone who claims that government involvement in healthcare is not popular is a fool, delusional, or a liar. Probably all three.


Really, thats what you use to back up your assertion. I see who the delusional fool is, just don't know if you are a liar.
 
2012-08-16 03:11:49 PM
img0.fark.net Norquist's economic terrorism group? No clicky. They're about as credible as flat-earthers discussing the Curiosity mission.
 
2012-08-16 03:21:56 PM

Dr Dreidel: mrshowrules: Said it before. The US needs a a Federal income surtax.

How about a .5% surtax on incomes over $250k to help pay for every .1% rate cut for the top bracket?

// might that cause Norquist's head to explode, or would that require that he process something beyond the party affiliation of who proposed it?


The whole point of a surtax is that it is not applied to any specific bracket. It applied to everyone equally. If you pay $10,000 in taxes, a 0.5% surtax would only be $50. If you pay $100,000 in taxes it would be $500.

It is a flat tax in away but on top of the underlying progressive tax system which still must have. Ideally, the underlying progressive system is enough money for all Government spending and the surtax just deals with surprises, new spending or to balance the budget.
 
2012-08-16 03:26:51 PM

mrshowrules: Dr Dreidel: mrshowrules: Said it before. The US needs a a Federal income surtax.

How about a .5% surtax on incomes over $250k to help pay for every .1% rate cut for the top bracket?

// might that cause Norquist's head to explode, or would that require that he process something beyond the party affiliation of who proposed it?

The whole point of a surtax is that it is not applied to any specific bracket. It applied to everyone equally. If you pay $10,000 in taxes, a 0.5% surtax would only be $50. If you pay $100,000 in taxes it would be $500.

It is a flat tax in away but on top of the underlying progressive tax system which still must have. Ideally, the underlying progressive system is enough money for all Government spending and the surtax just deals with surprises, new spending or to balance the budget.


You missed the point of that. If we add a .5% penalty (or fee - I called it a "surtax") for every .1% they want as a tax cut, how long do you think it'll be before they stop whining?

// or really, it was a snarky way of saying "we'll give you tax cuts - cuts relative to the new rate we're setting at 40%. You can have .4% of that rate back."
// 39.6
 
2012-08-16 03:57:17 PM

Dr Dreidel: mrshowrules: Dr Dreidel: mrshowrules: Said it before. The US needs a a Federal income surtax.

How about a .5% surtax on incomes over $250k to help pay for every .1% rate cut for the top bracket?

// might that cause Norquist's head to explode, or would that require that he process something beyond the party affiliation of who proposed it?

The whole point of a surtax is that it is not applied to any specific bracket. It applied to everyone equally. If you pay $10,000 in taxes, a 0.5% surtax would only be $50. If you pay $100,000 in taxes it would be $500.

It is a flat tax in away but on top of the underlying progressive tax system which still must have. Ideally, the underlying progressive system is enough money for all Government spending and the surtax just deals with surprises, new spending or to balance the budget.

You missed the point of that. If we add a .5% penalty (or fee - I called it a "surtax") for every .1% they want as a tax cut, how long do you think it'll be before they stop whining?

// or really, it was a snarky way of saying "we'll give you tax cuts - cuts relative to the new rate we're setting at 40%. You can have .4% of that rate back."
// 39.6


Got it.
 
2012-08-16 04:23:32 PM

Buffalo77: Really, thats what you use to back up your assertion. I see who the delusional fool is, just don't know if you are a liar.


It corroborates what has been seen in other polls elsewhere for years now. The extent that the ACA is unpopular has more to do with people disappointed that it didn't do more, not less. When the ACA was being voted on, polls showed that it would have been far more popular if the public option had been included. I won't bother to post links because you would most likely ignore them anyway.

The votes on that graph are comprised mostly from fark readers here, and I can't explain why there is so much green as opposed to red. For all the vitriol spewed here over the ACA you would expect to see different results. But there it is.
 
2012-08-16 08:50:54 PM

AntiNerd: It corroborates what has been seen in other polls elsewhere for years now. The extent that the ACA is unpopular has more to do with people disappointed that it didn't do more, not less. When the ACA was being voted on, polls showed that it would have been far more popular if the public option had been included. I won't bother to post links because you would most likely ignore them anyway.


Then show those polls. Don't create a new one with a scant 222 votes on it. Internet polls suck and are grossly inaccurate.

I actually agree with you, but your arguments need to be way more solid than that. See, follow Thrag's example. THAT is how you farking argue, my friend.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report